Posts Tagged ‘citizen’

A Florida judge has scheduled a hearing for Obama’s lawyers to explain why “natural born citizen” does not mean the child of two American citizens. Judge Terry Lewis made critical rulings during the Bush-Gore presidential election in 2000 that were eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorney Larry Klayman has brought forward a suit from a registered Democrat challenging Obama’s eligibility to be President under the Constitution’s requirement under Article 2, Section 1, that the president be a “natural born” citizen of the United States of America.

As the Constitution does not explain the term “natural born” citizen, Klayman’s case cites the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Minor v. Happersett from 1875 in which the Court said that a “natural born” citizen is the offspring of parents who are both citizens of the United States. This is not the same as a “citizen” or a “native born” citizen, in which case citizenship can be conferred simply by being born in the United States. The Constitution makes a special requirement for the Office of President; both parents must be U.S. citizens.

Since it is known Obama’s father was a British subject from Kenya, there have been dozens of lawsuits filed since before he was elected challenging his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States, but none of the lawsuits have had a full hearing; all have been dismissed on technicalities or put aside. This hearing is significant because it is the first time a hearing will be held on the legal definition of “natural born” citizen. If the judge holds by the decision of the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, it could bring serious reappraisal to Obama’s claim to be eligible to be President.

So far courts and judges have run from having to make a ruling on Obama’s eligibility for office. However, if Judge Lewis is not satisfied with Obama’s lawyers’ explanations and finds that Obama does not meet the requirements under the U.S. Constitution, the challenge to his eligibility may finally be heard and will undoubtably end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Obama and his lawyers were a no show at an administrative court hearing in Atlanta two days ago to determine whether he met the eligibility requirements to be a candidate for the presidency as given in the U.S. Constitution. The link below is a quick blow by blow of the proceedings and what was entered and was said in the court.

Though the mainstream media by and large ignored the hearing, it will be interesting to see what follows if the administrative judge deems Obama ineligible to appear on the ballot in Georgia to run for president. With the evidence given to the court, it is hard to imagine that he would qualify to be on the ballot in November. If other states follow, this could create real problems for the Democrats and Obama.

Yesterday in Atlanta an administrative law judge heard from plaintiffs claiming Obama is ineligible to appear on the ballot in Georgia because he is not a “natural born” citizen as required of a presidential candidate by the U.S. Constitution. This is the first time a court has agreed to hear evidence regarding Obama’s status as a “natural born” citizen. Incredibly, Obama and his lawyers chose to ignore the court and did not appear at the hearing or try to deny the claim or prove that he is eligible.

This issue has been the subject of various lawsuits since 2008 because “natural born” citizen is usually understood to mean that both parents are American citizens. Yet in his autobiography Obama acknowlegded that his father was a British citizen from Kenya. The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids presidential candidates to be foreign born or to hold dual citizenship. However, until now every single court has refused to hear evidence on the issue, usually citing some reason such as the plaintiffs lacking standing; that is until yesterday.

The court in Atlanta did not issue a judgment immediately, but by not showing, the judge is likely to declare a default judgment (meaning Obama loses by default, failure to appear), which will then be recommended to the Secretary of State who has the final say on whether or not Obama’s name will appear on the ballot. If his name is not on the ballot, he will not receive any electoral votes from Georgia. Similar lawsuits are waiting to be heard in other states within the next few months.

If these lawsuits prevail, Obama’s time in office may come to an end sooner than he would like. It’s going to get much more interesting from hereon out.

Nightwatch blog began shortly before Obama was elected president of the United States. It was not my original intent to blog about politics or Obama or the question of his eligibility to be president. I actually expected the issue to be resolved years ago. I am astounding that such an important constitutional question still has not been heard in the courts of America; in fact they seem to be ducking the question and running for cover. The questions of his eligibility seem legitimate and loom large over our nation. Are we still a nation of law or have we chosen another path?

photo credit: atlas shrugs

The questions regarding Obama’s eligibility originate directly from the U.S. Constitution. Article 2, Section 1, states that only a “natural born” citizen may be eligible to be President of the United States, and dual citizenship is not allowed. Obama’s eligibility is questionable on several accounts. Some of the major ones are listed below, plus there are over 200 articles and links on this blog that can be read and studied.

Obama is not a “natural born” citizen because his father, according to Obama, was a British subject from Kenya. A “natural born” citizen must have two U.S. citizen parents. In addition, since his father was British, Obama at best was a dual citizen, which is also not allowed.

According to Obama’s own grandmother who lives in Kenya, she attended Obama’s birth — in Kenya. She claimed he was not born in Hawaii but in Kenya in Mombasa. The African press has stated on more than one occasion that Obama is a Kenyan, African-born.

Obama’s mother remarried an Indonesian man and the family moved to Indonesia where Obama attended school under the name Barry Soetoro, indicating his stepfather adopted him. Also, only Indonesian Muslims could attend school, so Obama must have taken Indonesian citizenship as well, meaning he was no longer an American citizen.

Obama's Indonesian School Record

During his time in college it is known that Obama traveled to Pakistan; however, the year he went there American travel to Pakistan was prohibited because of international conflicts, so the only way he could have gotten into the country was on a foreign passport — perhaps an Indonesian passport.

Obama intentionally sealed all of his college and university records, without explanation, so it is impossible to see if he registered as an American student or a foreign student, like his father. Very few records are available about any facet of his life. He has spent an estimated $2 million so far to keep his records secret from the public.

Obama briefly posted his Selective Service card, but anomalies with the card and the year it was supposedly issued (red squares) were noted and it quickly disappeared from the internet.

A Certification of Live Birth was then posted on the internet, but it also came under scrutiny, especially when it was learned that they could be obtained simply on request. Complicating the issue was the fact that neither of the hospitals in Hawaii where Obama claimed to be born (yes, he’s claimed two different ones) have any record that he or his mother were ever in the hospitals.

Oddly, no doctor, nurse, or hospital worker has ever come forth claiming they attended Obama’s birth in Hawaii though monetary rewards were offered if someone would prove they attended his birth or saw him in the hospital as a newborn.

A search of government records showed that Obama’s Social Security card and number were issued in Connecticut, a state Obama never lived in. SS numbers are coded by the state that issues the card. Further search found that the number Obama is using was never issued to him.

However, a judge dismissed this because he felt the information was obtained without good faith and the person who accessed it had no legal reason to do so — though it came from the SS administration’s own site.

Finally, there is the whole controversy involving the posting of what purported to be Obama’s “official” birth certificate a full two plus years after he took office. However, it took the computer savvy less than an hour to determine that the “certificate” was actually photoshopped and likely fraudulent. Subsequently, several document, typographical, software, and computer experts have examined the certificate and have largely labeled it a forgery — and not a very good one. The list of anomalies is long, but some are very telling, such as having different typefaces (which a typewritten document from 1961 would not have). One expert went so far as to figure out exactly how the forgery was made and then recreated the “certificate” to prove it was forgery.

photo credit Irey -- WND

All of these stories and links to other articles and pictures of the documents in question are in the previous postings on this blog going back to fall of 2008. As I said, over 200. However, I am being called in another direction now and I will not be adding anymore to this blog unless and until this matter is finally resolved or something very major breaks. Then there might be one last big story — if some court or the Supreme Court will finally agree to hear the case of Obama’s eligibility under the U.S. Constitution to be president and allow the evidence to be shown.

Right before Christmas, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco finally released its ruling on the lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. The Court dismissed the cases and refused discovery basically saying that whereas the plantiffs might have “competitive standing” to sue, Obama’s inauguration wiped out any claims the plaintiffs had about the election being unfair. In other words, this ruling means that once he took office, it’s too late to challenge the election whether there was fraud or not.

The plaintiffs in these cases included two 2008 presidential candidates, Alan Keyes and Gail Lightfoot, and one vice presidential candidate, Wiley S. Drake, plus other officials and interested parties. The judges stated in their surprising opinion that once Obama was sworn in the plaintiffs were no longer candidates, therefore their claims to an unfair election disappeared with the administration of the oath of office since the lawsuit was filed hours later, meaning too late.

Currently, the attorneys for the plaintiffs are weighing their next move, though attorney Orly Taitz has vowed to fight on until all avenues are exhausted and justice is done. So far no court in the country has agreed to hear the case on its merits and most have dismissed the dozens of cases brought forth on various technicalities, usually on the question of standing, though the Ninth Circuit may have put a crack in that claim.

It is well known that Obama’s father was a British subject from Kenya and that the U.S. Contitution does not allow dual citizenship for the office of president. A president must be a “natural born” citizen meaning both parents must be U.S. citizens. Sooner or later the Court will have to rule on the constitutionality of Obama’s presidency, hopefully before the next election.

Constitutional law scholar and former law professor, Dr. Herbert W. Titus, has come forward to explain what the Constitution means by requiring that the President of United States must be a “natural born citizen.” Dr. Titus has degrees from Harvard and the University of Oregon, and is admitted to practice law before the U.S. Supreme Court and several appellate and district courts throughout the United States. In this brief article, Dr. Titus explains the distinction between a “natural born” citizen and a “native born” citizen, and also why the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no bearing on the issue.

In brief, a “native born” citizen is a person who was born on American soil (which Obama may or may not have been) and a “natural born” citizen is one who was not only born on American soil, but also has two American citizens for parents (which Obama does not since his father by Obama’s own admission was a British subject from Kenya).

In addition, the 14th amendment to the Constitution granting citizenship to those born in America who previously did not have citizenship was created to grant citizenship to former slaves after the Civil War and has nothing to do with the citizenship requirements to be President. Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution is very clear in requiring the President to be a “natural born” citizen.

It is exceedingly clear that Obama does not pass the Constitutional test as a “natural born” citizen and should never have been allowed to run for President, let alone become President. It is unconscionable that the Democratic Party (which knew this beforehand), Congress, and the Electoral College allowed this miscarriage to happen. It also remains a mystery why no court in the land will take up this case and rule on it. Since Obama is planning to run again, it is imperative that this issue be legally dealt with once and for all.

Computer graphics expert Ron Pollard has succeeded in duplicating Obama’s “birth certificate” in order to show how the forgery was accomplished. Pollard spend two months deconstructing, reverse engineering, then reconstructing the PDF document the White House claims is Obama’s “birth certificate” from Hawaii. His is the latest analysis of the computer document which has been examined by over 20 computer and imaging experts, most of whom have said the birth certificate is a fake. Pollard has produced a four-part video series showing and explaining how it was done (click the first link below).

In the second part of the report (second link) Pollard recounts what he learned in the 800 hours of deconstructing, forensic analysis, reconstruction, and testing of the duplicate he was able to create and give his views on the forger. Among those things, he says that he believes more than one person worked on the forgery, but there was a main forger who was expert in using “Adobe software products, including Acrobat, Illustrator and Photoshop, in its production,” according to the report on WND. Surprisingly, he also believes the anomalies in the forgery were not mistakes, but left on purpose in order to draw criticism which could be countered by Obama supporters claiming they were naturally occurring with certain software. In all, Pollard says that construction of the forgery required over 100 individual precise steps and the forger paid close attention to every detail. Still, he says, it is a forgery.

Though Pollard’s analysis and duplication of the birth certificate PDF would seem to prove that it is a forgery, so far no court has been willing to hear any case or lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility as a “natural born” citizen to be heard on the merits of the case. Various excuses and technicalities have used to avoid dealing with the issue in a court of law, but it is hoped that eventually the truth will be heard and a judgment rendered. In the meantime, the evidence continues to mount and most of it is not going in Obama’s favor.

In an astounding ruling, the Federal Elections Commission has ruled that a “naturalized” citizen has the same standing as a “natural born” citizen. Abdul Hassan, an attorney born in Guyana, South America, and now a naturalized American citizen, convinced the FEC that to deny him the right to run for president is discrimination. The FEC agreed in that under the Federal Election Campaign Act a naturalized citizen is not prohibited from being a candidate for president.

The FEC’s ruling places the Federal Election Campaign Act above the U.S. Constitution in determining eligibility to run for President of the United States. Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly says that only a “natural born” citizen is eligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States. The Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on the definition of who is a “natural born” citizen (though historically it has been assumed to be a person whose parents are both American citizens), but it has also not ever indicated that a “naturalized” citizen is the same as a “natural born” citizen.

photo credit: atlas shrugs

The FEC’s ruling throws another wrinkle into the ongoing dispute over Obama’s eligibility to be president since his father was not an American citizen and the “birth certificate” the White House posted earlier this year has been pronounced a forgery by various computer document experts.

In another development in the continuing drama concerning Obama, a case involving former presidential candidate Alan Keyes challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president was considered by the Supreme Court in conference on Monday.

To date the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear any of the cases challenging Obama, but attorney Gary Kreep is hopeful since his client was a presidential candidate and would presumably have “standing” to prove harm and have his case heard. A decision should be issued within a week or so.

As for a similar case that was heard some weeks ago before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, involving some of the same clients, and attorney Orly Taitz, but which also included an issue with Obama’s Social Security number being issued in Connecticut instead of Hawaii where he was from, no decision has come down yet. It is expected that when that decision comes down, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court by whichever side is ruled against.

At some point this tangled mess needs to be sorted out, but when that will be is a matter of great speculation as lawsuits have been filed challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president since before the election in 2008. So far not one case has been heard in any court based on its merits. Every court has ducked these lawsuits or passed them on. Sooner or later a trial and a ruling must be made: Is the Constitution still the supreme law of the land in the United States or not?

Professional typographer, Paul Irey, received permission to compare Obama’s “birth certificate” with a genuine 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate from a person born in the same hospital about three weeks after Obama was supposedly born there. There are striking differences in the typefaces of the two documents. Whereas Obama’s document is obviously composed of a variety of typefaces, which would be impossible on a typewriter, the genuine birth certificate has consistent typefaces throughout.

Irey has over 50 years experience including 25 creating documents on Macintosh computers. He explains that metal typewriter keys cannot produce letters that vary in style and size, yet the Obama document is full of such inconsistencies. He concludes that the only explanation is that the Obama “birth certificate” is a computer-generated forgery, a not a very good one.

picture credit: Irey -- WND

Irey had recently traveled to Hawaii expecting to be able to examine Obama’s “birth certificate” with attorney Orly Taitz, but the Hawaii Department of Vital Records refused to honor the subpoena and they were turned away. Taitz filed court papers in Hawaii to compel the department to comply with the subpoena, but that has not been ruled on yet.

A few cases are still winding their way through the courts challenging Obama’s eligibility to be President under the constitutional requirement that the President be a “natural born” citizen. It will be interesting to see how the court reacts to the evidence that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.

A federal judge in Washington D.C. has dismissed a case from attorney Orly Taitz requesting information from the Social Security Administration regarding Obama’s Social Security number. Questions have arisen since it was discovered that Obama’s Social Security number indicates it was issued in Connecticut, a state Obama never resided in.

Obama has said he grew up in Hawaii and therefore his Social Security number should bear numbers from being issued in Hawaii. It has been explained that the first three numbers of a Social Security number indicate the state that issued the card. Obama has offered no explanation as to why his number came from Connecticut.

Inquires about Obama’s Social Security number follow upon other lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be President which claim he is not a “natural born” citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution. Holding a fraudulent Social Security number is a federal offense and the lawsuit sought documentation on how Obama’s number was obtained.

Surprisingly to some, Judge Royce Lamberth said in his ruling that suspicion of fraud was not sufficient to grant the request and that the Privacy Act of 1974 protected personal information of number holders. Furthermore, the information on the number being possibly fraudulent was not his concern and he would ignore documents from the Social Security Verification System indicating such because they were obtained under false pretenses.

In short in appears that the judge has favored the Privacy Act of 1974 over the evidence that the man sitting in the Oval Office has a fraudulent Social Security number. Taitz has said that, using new evidence, she is submitting a motion for reconsideration. And so the drama continues.